Topic: Scam Report Against CryptoXchange $100k USD (Read 26299 times)

wow the Mt.gox btc thief, impressive!!

A bit confused by this thread... Did anyone ever recover their coins? I had about 10 BTC there 

So most of the participants in this thread from June 07, 2012 onward took (WME | Alexander Vinnick | the MtGox mastermind)'s side against Cryptoxchange, demanding that they return his money. And when Cryptoxchange protested that they couldn't yet do so due to an ongoing investigation, the folks here reflexively decided in favor of someone who is shaping up to be one of the world's most notorious criminals ever.

And although all of that would make this story pathetic (at best), it's likely that some of the folks who defended the OP here were themselves the OP's victim in the half-billion dollar MtGox heist.

Surely some of these individuals owe Cryptoxchange a humble apology at least.

thats the best part

Now u believe ??

Sure is. Alexander Vinnik, one of the co founders of BTC-e, and the hacker of MtGox: http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html

Going back to the first couple pages of this thread, and you will find the official BTC-e forum account backing him up

You really couldn't make this shit up.

Years of golden hours of reading bitcoin has provided me, long may it be so

So this is the guy who got arrested earlier today ?

mt gox thief crying that he got scammed, gotta love Bitcoin, you couldn't make a better story up than what's gone on in Bitcoins short life.
Stealing coins from gox and depositing them back onto gox wasn't the smartest of moves although it is quite funny that you used gox to launder their own hack, but ultimately it's what led to your downfall.

ATO and ASIC are able to. Your own lawyers aren't.

I've been down this road many times and I've had people have judgments overturned due to inadequate service. Fortunately, once their heads come up (by way of their lawyers) we serve the lawyers. Fixed.

How can you determine if coins are stolen?

This is not true.  The ATO - for instance - serves all of their statutory demands by mail to the address on record with ASIC, as do many businesses which issue statutory demands on a regular basis.  This is one reason why not keeping your details current on the ASIC registers is potentially catastrophic.  It's also why it's a good idea to list your lawyer or accountant's office for service of notices because statutory demands are not issued through courts and many people ignore them assuming that they're just a letter of demand because they don't realise their significance.

Where issuing a statutory demand through a lawyer can be tricky is the requirement that the affidavit be sworn by someone who has personal knowledge of the circumstances of the debt -this is obviously somewhat more difficult if the lawyer cannot get the client into their office to swear the affidavit as any deficiency in the affidavit will make render the statutory demand invalid.

Caveats are messy and easily set aside unless you have a true "interest in land".  The onus is on the caveator to prove that such an interest exists and that the caveat is being used for a proper purpose.  Trying to obtain a caveat in relation to the personal property of a company director in regard to a company debt which has not been proven (as opposed to an interest held by a mortgagor, a spouse, a joint property owner, a property purchaser, etc) is asking for the caveat to be set aside with an award of costs against the person who sought it.

To get adequate service for a statutory demand, postal delivery isn't sufficient.

For this, you need a process server to deliver the documents to a company director.

If you can't find them, it becomes very difficult to serve them.

It is possible to obtain a judgement in absentia/claiming you have had service, forcing the part(y/ies) to come forward to dispute this (and they will win) but that will present an opportunity to serve again as documents can then be served on their lawyers/them personally.

Caveats on any properties held in sole (or joint) titles is usually a prudent measure ...

From what I read Crypto never denied owing him this sort of money.


Seems crazy...

Because the manner in which a statutory demand must be responded to is defined by law.  The statute requires it to be responded to in very specific ways within 21 days.  You can pay the debt or make an agreement to pay the debt.  You can put the company into voluntary administration/liquidation (this has not happened - notice of all liquidations/administrations is published on the ASIC website within a couple of days at most and often on the same day).  You can apply to the court to have the statutory demand set aside.  You can ignore the statutory demand and a legal presumption of insolvency will arise allowing a creditor to seek appointment of a liquidator.  

Those are literally the only options available to a company which has been served with a statutory demand and no lawyer would advise their client to "wait and see" for many months when the amount involved is over $100,000.  Nor would any lawyer advise a company to ignore a statutory demand (even solvent companies have been forcibly wound up in the past for ignoring statutory demands).

If WME's lawyers had issued a statutory demand which had not been complied with and were seeking to have the company wound up, they would make him aware of that.  Instead, he just keeps complaining about them not acknowledging receipt of his ID documents.  Statutory demands are used all the time here and for much smaller amounts than WME claims to be owed.  It should have been one of the first strategies his lawyers proposed - unless they knew damned well that the validity of the debt is questionable and that the statutory demand would be set aside by a court.  Also note that the purported letter of demand talks about the release of USD not BTC, so the usual "courts won't acknowledge BTC as a debt" bullshit can't be claimed in this case as a reason for not taking the further legal action they were threatening back in July.

How do we not know this hasn't been done? Crypto did shut down... He may have been waiting to see if he had anything returned.. Most people would prefer keeping matters out of court.

 

They're supposed to take the next step in the process and issue a statutory demand.  A company literally has to respond to a statutory demand within 21 days or it is legally presumed to be insolvent and can be forced into liquidation on the basis of not responding to the demand (they must respond in one of a few very specific ways which are restricted by statute).  For the amount WME claims to be owed, there's simply no way that a competent lawyer would not have issued a statutory demand by now if they believed they could prove that WME's debt is legitimate.  I've even given this information to WME so that he can discuss with why no statutory demand has been issued but I suspect that he already knows the answer.

^ ? Why do they sound incompetent?


What else are they supposed to do for him other than send letters and call?  Did you see the copy of the letter they sent?


Lawyers are not supposed to go beat people down.

I hope you've refused to pay your lawyers.  They sound beyond incompetent.